Search results

In this chapter, we update stakeholder salience research using the new lens of stakeholder work: the purposive processes of organization aimed at being aware of, identifying, understanding, prioritizing, and engaging stakeholders. Specifically, we focus on stakeholder prioritization work — primarily as represented by the stakeholder salience model — and discuss contributions, shortcomings, and possibilities for this literature. We suggest that future research focus on stakeholder inclusivity, the complexity of prioritization work within intra-corporate markets, the integration of stakeholder prioritization with other forms of stakeholder work, and the development of managerial tools for multiobjective decision making within the strategic management context.

This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/13552529610127696. When citing the article, please cite: Ronald K. Mitchell, (1996), “Oral history and expert scripts: demystifying the entrepreneurial experience”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 2 Iss: 3, pp. 50 - 6.

Most of us believe that entrepreneurs are special. We do this because both scholars and practitioners tell us so.

Global entrepreneurship may be defined to be the creation of new, value-adding transactions or transaction streams anywhere on the globe. The objective of this chapter is to present and examine a theory of global entrepreneurship. At the World Economic Forum held in Davos, Switzerland, in January 1999, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called for global entrepreneurship to meet the needs of the disadvantaged and the requirements of future generations. This chapter first presents a transaction cognition theory of global entrepreneurship that is intended as a path for research that responds to this call. Second, this chapter examines the theory from three critical viewpoints: (1) capability for explanation; (2) theoretical and operational utility; and (3) verifiability through the logic of scientific inference, and presents likely propositions that are surfaced by the analysis. Finally in this chapter, some of the likely implications of this theory within the context of globalization are discussed.

In this study we focus on how conditions of uncertainty shape the entrepreneurial action that underlies opportunity creation. We utilize the basic structure of economic exchange in the context of opportunity creation theory to further investigate the conditions under which an entrepreneur might be expected to act to bring an opportunity into existence. Specifically, we suggest that uncertainty, that is manifest as relational uncertainty and resource uncertainty, shapes the entrepreneurial actions that underlie the creation of opportunities. In a laboratory experiment we test this hypothesis by observing 56 three-person groups engaged in an opportunity creation-focused exchange task. The results of the experiment support the hypothesis that variability in the conditions of uncertainty (relational uncertainty and resource uncertainty) affects the entrepreneurial action that results in opportunity creation. These results lead us then to propose that there exists a theoretically specifiable set of key entrepreneurial actions (one that is others-focused and another that is works-focused). From this analysis we suggest potential directions for future research in the areas of entrepreneurial action and opportunity creation.

The purpose of this paper is to develop and empirically test a conceptualization of competitive aggressiveness (CA), a dimension of entrepreneurial orientation.

Structural equation modeling and hierarchical regression are employed on responses from 182 banks in the southwestern US Performance data on the banks are drawn from the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC's) Call reports.

The results indicate awareness, motivation and capability are antecedents of CA, which itself is positively related to increased market share and, in more dense markets, profitability.

Aggressive firms exhibit certain routines that can lead to competitive actions, which assists performance in some contexts. Managers who wish to increase (or decrease) their firms' overall competitive posture can encourage (or discourage) employees from performing competitive routines such as monitoring their rivals or talking about their rivals' strategies.

By developing CA' conceptualization, the study advances the understanding of the antecedents of competitive behavior and makes it easier to study competition in smaller firms.

Decision‐making institutions evident in today’s small businesses display remarkable similarities to medieval feudalism. This paper presents: (1) the institutions of feudalism as applied to small business, (2) a theoretical framework as a foundation for explaining obvious parallels, and (3) propositions that furnish a basis for further research.

Notes that because oral histories illuminate insider meanings, they can contribute valuable insights to the demystification of expert experiences. The world of expert entrepreneurs is often misunderstood because of its sensationalization and/or idealization. Sets out to narrow the gap between mythical and actual entrepreneur through the use of the qualitative analysis of entrepreneur oral histories. Analyses in‐depth interviews with 23 practising western US entrepreneurs about their venturing histories to identify the common “stories” and shared interpretations that form parts of the entrepreneurial “expert scripts” that explain responses to successes and failures. Salient portions of the histories cited contribute to sound attributions regarding entrepreneurial success and failure and to a more enlightened approach to venture creation.

Calls for corporate social responsibility are widespread, yet there is no consensus about what it means; this may be its charm. However, it is possible to distinguish the fi duciary obligations owed to shareholders, as expressed by Milton Friedman, from all other paradigms of corporate responsibility. Friedman maintains that: “ ...there is one and only one social responsibility of business‐to‐use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud.” All other paradigms argue that corporations have social responsibilities that extend beyond the pursuit of shareholder benefits to stakeholders. The list of cited stakeholders is ill‐defined and expanding, including non‐human animals and non‐sentient things. This paper defends the intellectual and ethical merits of fiduciary duties, and compares and contrasts it to the stakeholder paradigm. The fiduciary duty to firms’ owners is the bedrock of capitalism, and capitalism will wither without it.